Talk:God is dead

Bumper sticker

• "God is dead – Nietzsche; Nietzsche is dead – God" is a popular line on t-shirts and bumper stickers.

This needs a qualification about how stupid this is, otherwise its spreading the same propaganda that the stickers are and is POV. Please don't put it back in until an agreement is made. --DanielCD 18:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Stupid or not, that slogan is a part of the common conciousness... a mention has to be made. Possibly a more NPOV comment is needed, but the common misinterpretation of the quote is discussed in the main article. I would say further belabouring of the point is superfluous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmackaerospace (talk • contribs)

Well, it's good that it's there. Then we don't need to mention it again in the quotes section. --DanielCD 19:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The version I read 20 years ago went "God is dead" Nietzsche "Nietzsche is dead" God "The dead don´t talk" Django (195.46.251.253 18:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC))

Shows the gall of people who think they can speak for God. --DanielCD 19:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Seroiusly, a section for popular culture might be useful for the theological movement section. I can think of the Tom Paxton song "Talking Death of God" (1966). I suspect that the "American Pie" "The three men I admired the most, the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost, they caught the last train for the coast" could refer to God as well as to the Big Bopper.Pustelnik (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It was even used by Terence Tao as an email signature, the internet equivalent of a bumper sticker: https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/2m-jqsZYZW8/m/mzsA_xkg26YJ?pli=1 --Ysangkok (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Article should be completely overhauled

"Death of God theology" has its own article and is really only tangentially related to what Nietzsche originally discussed. So why is the body of the article focused on that, rather than on Nietzsche's own ideas (which aren't about the "literal" death of God or even about atheism, per se). I came here to see a concise explanation of Nietzsche's ideas that I could link someone to who doesn't understand that it's not about God's literal death. The article should be primarily about Nietzsche's philosophy and what he actually intended with that phrase, not offshoots. Beggarsbanquet (talk) 08:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I would support removing the theology material. This article should focus on Nietzsche's usage of the phrase and scholarly interpretations of Nietzsche's usage. — goethean 14:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted back to a version from May 2012, and then removed much of the theology material, with a link to the main theology article. — goethean 15:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Completely agree, I addressed the first part of the lede a lil bit. Still needs much work. So it's probably under pressure from the religious given the anti-meme. Lycurgus (talk) 05:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Beggarsbanquet, Goethean, and Lycurgus: I have overhauled the article, but I think I lack the competences needed to make the article even better. Does any of you feel like working once again on this article? Veverve (talk) 09:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Misunderstandings of the death of God

This section is full of errors and misrepresentation of quotes and the only valid information is already written in other sections. For this reason I delete completely this section. To give you an example of gross misuse of quotes, consider the following passage: "Religious people start going against their beliefs and start coinciding with the beliefs of mainstream society. “[Moral thinking] is debased and poisoned by the influence of society’s weakest and most ignoble elements, the herd”.(Welshon p 16)" It implies that Welshon's understanding of Nietzsche is that the non-religious mainstream society is society’s weakest and most ignoble elements, the herd. But of course Welshon is not that ignorant. In Nietzschean philosophy religious people are society’s weakest. On the same page Welshon says: "Thus begins his lifelong war with morality and Christianity." If you read this section carefully all quotes are accompanied by writer's explanation, which alters their original meaning and are in conflict with Nietzsche's main interpreters like Heidegger or Deleuze. -- Bear 11:26:41 AM, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

"Nietzsche is dead" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Nietzsche is dead has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 18 § Nietzsche is dead until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Which "hymn of Martin Luther"? (section Early usage)

It would be helpful if the "hymn of Martin Luther", described as discovered by K Satichananda Murty, as containing the words "God is dead" were mentioned, with the phrase quoted in context of at least the verse (if a multi-verse hymn). Hard to imagine Luther uttering that phrase, I being neither German nor Lutheran having no access to any anthology of Luther hymns. I quote below the sentence from this article:

Buddhist philosopher K. Satchidananda Murty wrote in 1973 that, coming across in a hymn of Martin Luther what Hegel described as "the cruel words", "the harsh utterance", namely, "God is dead", developed the theme of God's death according to whom, to one form of experience, God is dead.

Cloptonson (talk) 10:57, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

@Cloptonson: from what I have managed to gather, I am sure Hegel was in fact referring to von Rist's hymn, not to an hymn made by Martin Luther.

Jon, Stewart (2022). "6 Hegel's Philosophical Interpretation of Christianity". An Introduction to Hegel's Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion, quotes Hegel as writing:

“God himself is dead,” it says in a Lutheran hymn, expressing an awareness that the human, the finite, the fragile, the weak, the negative are themselves a moment of the divine, that they are within God himself, that finitude, negativity, otherness are not outside of God and do not, as otherness, hinder unity with God. Otherness, the negative, is known to be a moment of the divine nature itself.

The references given by Stewart for this quotation of Hegel are: Hegel, LPR [Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion, vols 1–3, ed. by Peter C. Hodgson, trans. by Robert F. Brown, P. C. Hodgson and J. M. Stewart with the assistance of H. S. Harris, Berkeley: University of California Press 1984–87.], vol. 3, p. 326; VPR [Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion, Parts 1–3, ed. by Walter Jaeschke, Hamburg: Felix Meiner 1983–85, 1993–95.], Part 3, pp. 249–50.

Stewart also writes: "The editorial note refers to the hymn from 1641 ‘O Trauigkeit, O Herzeleid’ by Johannes Rist. LPR, vol. 3, p. 326, note 205; VPR, Part 3, p. 249n."

The original German can be found here, p. 253

I have therefore taken the liberty of correcting what is said about K. Satchidananda Murty's analysis. Indeed, while I do not have access to Murty's book and my lack of grasp on German prevents me from checking if Hegel refers to ths expression as "the cruel words" and "the harsh utterance", nevertheless it seems logical that this is what Murty meant.

I am also pinging @FatalSubjectivities: who added this part to confirm.

The question has also allowed me to clarify the exact words used by von Rist in the WP article. Veverve (talk) 14:25, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. The words though do seem quoted out of context - perhaps a footnote giving the complete verse for context would help.Cloptonson (talk) 05:54, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

@Cloptonson: what do you mean, and which quote are you referring to? Veverve (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

The words "God is dead", I meant. Is it part of a sentence or line in the nameless hymn?Cloptonson (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

It is part of the following stanza:

Oh great misery!
God Himself [lies] dead,
He died upon the cross,
Out of love thereby He secured
For us the Kingdom of Heaven.

(text.html?TextId=614298 source) Veverve (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand the verse to be part of a meditative hymn on the Crucifixion.Cloptonson (talk) 06:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)